Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life Implications for Clinical Practice Derald Wing Sue, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri, Aisha M. B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin Teachers College, Columbia University Racial microaggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, de- rogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color. Perpetrators of microaggressions are often unaware that they engage in such communications when they interact with racial/ethnic minorities. A taxonomy of racial microaggressions in everyday life was created through a review of the social psychological literature on aversive racism, from formulations regarding the manifes- tation and impact of everyday racism, and from reading numerous personal narratives of counselors (both White and those of color) on their racial/cultural awakening. Microaggressions seem to appear in three forms: microas- sault, microinsult, and microinvalidation. Almost all inter- racial encounters are prone to microaggressions; this ar- ticle uses the White counselor – client of color counseling dyad to illustrate how they impair the development of a therapeutic alliance. Suggestions regarding education and training and research in the helping professions are dis- cussed. Keywords: microaggression, microassault, microinsult, mi- croinvalidation, attributional ambiguity A lthough the civil rights movement had a signifi- cant effect on changing racial interactions in this society, racism continues to plague the United States (Thompson & Neville, 1999). President Clinton’s Race Advisory Board concluded that (a) racism is one of the most divisive forces in our society, (b) racial legacies of the past continue to haunt current policies and practices that create unfair disparities between minority and majority groups, (c) racial inequities are so deeply ingrained in American society that they are nearly invisible, and (d) most White Americans are unaware of the advantages they enjoy in this society and of how their attitudes and actions unintentionally discriminate against persons of color (Ad- visory Board to the President’s Initiative on Race, 1998). This last conclusion is especially problematic in the mental health professions because most graduates continue to be White and trained primarily in Western European models of service delivery (D. W. Sue & Sue, 2003). For that reason, this article focuses primarily on White therapist – client of color interactions. Because White therapists are members of the larger society and not immune from inheriting the racial biases of their forebears (Burkard & Knox, 2004; D. W. Sue, 2005), they may become victims of a cultural conditioning process that imbues within them biases and prejudices (Abelson, Dasgupta, Park, & Banaji, 1998; Banaji, Hardin, & Roth- man, 1993) that discriminate against clients of color. Over the past 20 years, calls for cultural competence in the helping professions (American Psychological Association, 2003; D. W. Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992) have stressed the importance of two therapist characteristics associated with effective service delivery to racial/ethnic minority clients: (a) awareness of oneself as a racial/cul- tural being and of the biases, stereotypes, and assumptions that influence worldviews and (b) awareness of the world- views of culturally diverse clients. Achieving these two goals is blocked, however, when White clinicians fail to understand how issues of race influence the therapy process and how racism potentially infects the delivery of services to clients of color (Richardson & Molinaro, 1996). Thera- pists who are unaware of their biases and prejudices may unintentionally create impasses for clients of color, which may partially explain well-documented patterns of therapy underutilization and premature termination of therapy among such clients (Burkard & Knox, 2004; Kearney, Draper, & Baron, 2005). In this article, we describe and analyze how racism in the form of racial microaggressions is particularly problematic for therapists to identify; pro- pose a taxonomy of racial microaggressions with potential implications for practice, education and training, and re- search; and use the counseling/therapy process to illustrate how racial microaggressions can impair the therapeutic alliance. To date, no conceptual or theoretical model of Editor’s note. Lillian Comas-Dı ́az served as the action editor for this article before Derald Wing Sue joined the American Psychologist Edito- rial Board as an associate editor on January 1, 2007. Authors’ note. Derald Wing Sue, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri, Aisha M. B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin, Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University. Aisha M. B. Holder is now at Fordham University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to De- rald Wing Sue, Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Box 36, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027. E-mail: dwingsue@aol.com 271 May–June 2007 ● American Psychologist Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/07/$12.00 Vol. 62, No. 4, 271–286 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271 racial microaggressions has been proposed to explain their impact on the therapeutic process. The Changing Face of Racism In recent history, racism in North America has undergone a transformation, especially after the post– civil rights era when the conscious democratic belief in equality for groups of color directly clashed with the long history of racism in the society (Jones, 1997; Thompson & Neville, 1999). The more subtle forms of racism have been labeled modern racism (McConahay, 1986), symbolic racism (Sears, 1988), and aversive racism (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002). All three explanations of contemporary racism share commonalities. They emphasize that racism (a) is more likely than ever to be disguised and covert and (b) has evolved from the “old fashioned” form, in which overt racial hatred and bigotry is consciously and publicly displayed, to a more ambiguous and nebulous form that is more difficult to identify and acknowledge. It appears that modern and symbolic racism are most closely associated with political conservatives, who dis- claim personal bigotry by strong and rigid adherence to traditional American values (individualism, self-reliance, hard work, etc.), whereas aversive racism is more charac- teristic of White liberals (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996, 2000). Aversive racists, according to these researchers, are strongly motivated by egalitarian values as well as antimi- nority feelings. Their egalitarian values operate on a con- scious level, while their antiminority feelings are less con- scious and generally covert (DeVos & Banaji, 2005). In some respects, these three forms of racism can be ordered along a continuum; aversive racists are the least con- sciously negative, followed by modern and symbolic rac- ists, who are somewhat more prejudiced, and finally by old-fashioned biological racists (Nelson, 2006). Although much has been written about contemporary forms of racism, many studies in health care (Smedley & Smedley, 2005), education (Gordon & Johnson, 2003), employment (Hinton, 2004), mental health (Burkard & Knox, 2004), and other social settings (Sellers & Shelton, 2003) indicate the difficulty of describing and defining racial discrimination that occurs via “aversive racism” or “implicit bias”; these types of racism are difficult to iden- tify, quantify, and rectify because of their subtle, nebulous, and unnamed nature. Without an adequate classification or understanding of the dynamics of subtle racism, it will remain invisible and potentially harmful to the well-being, self-esteem, and standard of living of people of color (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Ironi- cally, it has been proposed that the daily common experi- ences of racial aggression that characterize aversive racism may have significantly more influence on racial anger, frustration, and self-esteem than traditional overt forms of racism (Solo ́rzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). Furthermore, the invisible nature of acts of aversive racism prevents perpe- trators from realizing and confronting (a) their own com- plicity in creating psychological dilemmas for minorities and (b) their role in creating disparities in employment, health care, and education. The Manifestation of Racial Microaggressions In reviewing the literature on subtle and contemporary forms of racism, we have found the term “ racial microag- gressions ” to best describe the phenomenon in its everyday occurrence. First coined by Pierce in 1970, the term refers to “subtle, stunning, often automatic, and non-verbal ex- Derald Wing Sue Christina M. Capodilupo 272 May–June 2007 ● American Psychologist changes which are ‘put downs’” (Pierce, Carew, Pierce- Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978, p. 66). Racial microaggressions have also been described as “subtle insults (verbal, non- verbal, and/or visual) directed toward people of color, often automatically or unconsciously” (Solo ́rzano et al., 2000). Simply stated, microaggressions are brief, everyday ex- changes that send denigrating messages to people of color because they belong to a racial minority group. In the world of business, the term “ microinequities ” is used to describe the pattern of being overlooked, underrespected, and de- valued because of one’s race or gender. Microaggressions are often unconsciously delivered in the form of subtle snubs or dismissive looks, gestures, and tones. These ex- changes are so pervasive and automatic in daily conversa- tions and interactions that they are often dismissed and glossed over as being innocent and innocuous. Yet, as indicated previously, microaggressions are detrimental to persons of color because they impair performance in a multitude of settings by sapping the psychic and spiritual energy of recipients and by creating inequities (Franklin, 2004; D. W. Sue, 2004). There is an urgent need to bring greater awareness and understanding of how microaggressions operate, their nu- merous manifestations in society, the type of impact they have on people of color, the dynamic interaction between perpetrator and target, and the educational strategies needed to eliminate them. Our attempt to define and pro- pose a taxonomy of microaggressions is grounded in sev- eral lines of empirical and experiential evidence in the professional literature and in personal narratives. First, the work by psychologists on aversive racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996; Dovidio et al., 2002), studies suggesting the widespread existence of dissociation be- tween implicit and explicit social stereotyping (Abelson et al., 1998; Banaji et al., 1993; DeVos & Banaji, 2005), the attributional ambiguity of everyday racial discrimination (Crocker & Major, 1989), the daily manifestations of rac- ism in many arenas of life (Plant & Peruche, 2005; Sellers & Shelton, 2003; Vanman, Saltz, Nathan, & Warren, 2004), and multiple similarities between microaggressive incidents and items that comprise measures of race-related stress/perceived discrimination toward Black Americans (Brondolo et al., 2005; Klonoff & Landrine, 1999; Utsey & Ponterotto, 1996) and Asian Americans (Liang, Li, & Kim, 2004) all seem to lend empirical support to the concept of racial microaggressions. Second, numerous personal narra- tives and brief life stories on race written by White psy- chologists and psychologists of color provide experiential evidence for the existence of racial microaggressions in everyday life (American Counseling Association, 1999; Conyne & Bemak, 2005; Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexander, 2001). Our analysis of the life experiences of these individuals and the research literature in social and counseling psychology led us to several conclusions: (a) The personal narratives were rich with examples and inci- dents of racial microaggressions, (b) the formulation of microaggressions was consistent with the research litera- ture, and (c) racial microaggressions seemed to manifest themselves in three distinct forms. Forms of Racial Microaggressions Racial microaggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, de- rogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to the target person or group. They are not limited to human encounters alone but may also be environmental in nature, as when a person of color is exposed to an office setting that unin- Gina C. Torino Jennifer M. Bucceri 273 May–June 2007 ● American Psychologist tentionally assails his or her racial identity (Gordon & Johnson, 2003; D. W. Sue, 2003). For example, one’s racial identity can be minimized or made insignificant through the sheer exclusion of decorations or literature that represents various racial groups. Three forms of microaggressions can be identified: microassault, microinsult, and microinvalida- tion. Microassault A microassault is an explicit racial derogation character- ized primarily by a verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant behav- ior, or purposeful discriminatory actions. Referring to someone as “colored” or “Oriental,” using racial epithets, discouraging interracial interactions, deliberately serving a White patron before someone of color, and displaying a swastika are examples. Microassaults are most similar to what has been called “old fashioned” racism conducted on an individual level. They are most likely to be conscious and deliberate, although they are generally expressed in limited “private” situations (micro) that allow the perpe- trator some degree of anonymity. In other words, people are likely to hold notions of minority inferiority privately and will only display them publicly when they (a) lose control or (b) feel relatively safe to engage in a microas- sault. Because we have chosen to analyze the unintentional and unconscious manifestations of microaggressions, mi- croassaults are not the focus of our article. It is important to note, however, that individuals can also vary in the degree of conscious awareness they show in the use of the follow- ing two forms of microaggressions. Microinsult A microinsult is characterized by communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity. Microinsults represent subtle snubs, frequently unknown to the perpetrator, but clearly convey a hidden insulting message to the recipient of color. When a White employer tells a prospective candidate of color “I believe the most qualified person should get the job, regardless of race” or when an employee of color is asked “How did you get your job?”, the underlying mes- sage from the perspective of the recipient may be twofold: (a) People of color are not qualified, and (b) as a minority group member, you must have obtained the position through some affirmative action or quota program and not because of ability. Such statements are not necessarily aggressions, but context is important. Hearing these state- ments frequently when used against affirmative action makes the recipient likely to experience them as aggres- sions. Microinsults can also occur nonverbally, as when a White teacher fails to acknowledge students of color in the classroom or when a White supervisor seems distracted during a conversation with a Black employee by avoiding eye contact or turning away (Hinton, 2004). In this case, the message conveyed to persons of color is that their contributions are unimportant. Microinvalidation Microinvalidations are characterized by communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color. When Asian Americans (born and raised in the United States) are complimented for speaking good English or are repeatedly asked where they were born, the effect is to negate their U.S. American heritage and to convey that they are per- petual foreigners. When Blacks are told that “I don’t see color” or “We are all human beings,” the effect is to negate their experiences as racial/cultural beings (Helms, 1992). Aisha M. B. Holder Kevin L. Nadal 274 May–June 2007 ● American Psychologist When a Latino couple is given poor service at a restaurant and shares their experience with White friends, only to be told “Don’t be so oversensitive” or “Don’t be so petty,” the racial experience of the couple is being nullified and its importance is being diminished. We have been able to identify nine categories of microaggressions with distinct themes: alien in one’s own land, ascription of intelligence, color blindness, criminal- ity/assumption of criminal status, denial of individual rac- ism, myth of meritocracy, pathologizing cultural values/ communication styles, second-class status, and environmental invalidation. Table 1 provides samples of comments or situ- ations that may potentially be classified as racial microaggres- sions and their accompanying hidden assumptions and mes- sages. Figure 1 visually presents the three large classes of microaggressions, the classification of the themes under each category, and their relationship to one another. The experience of a racial microaggression has major implications for both the perpetrator and the target person. It creates psychological dilemmas that unless adequately resolved lead to increased levels of racial anger, mistrust, and loss of self-esteem for persons of color; prevent White people from perceiving a different racial reality; and create impediments to harmonious race-relations (Spanierman & Heppner, 2004; Thompson & Neville, 1999). The Invisibility and Dynamics of Racial Microaggressions The following real-life incident illustrates the issues of invisibility and the disguised problematic dynamics of ra- cial microaggressions. I [Derald Wing Sue, the senior author, an Asian American] recently traveled with an African American colleague on a plane flying from New York to Boston. The plane was a small “hopper” with a single row of seats on one side and double seats on the other. As the plane was only sparsely populated, we were told by the flight attendant (White) that we could sit anywhere, so we sat at the front, across the aisle from one another. This made it easy for us to converse and provided a larger comfortable space on a small plane for both of us. As the attendant was about to close the hatch, three White men in suits entered the plane, were informed they could sit anywhere, and promptly seated themselves in front of us. Just before take-off, the attendant proceeded to close all overhead compartments and seemed to scan the plane with her eyes. At that point she approached us, leaned over, interrupted our conversation, and asked if we would mind moving to the back of the plane. She indicated that she needed to distribute weight on the plane evenly. Both of us (passengers of color) had similar negative reactions. First, balancing the weight on the plane seemed reasonable, but why were we being singled out? After all, we had boarded first and the three White men were the last passengers to arrive. Why were they not being asked to move? Were we being singled out because of our race? Was this just a random event with no racial overtones? Were we being oversensitive and petty? Although we complied by moving to the back of the plane, both of us felt resentment, irritation, and anger. In light of our everyday racial experiences, we both came to the same conclusion: The flight attendant had treated us like second-class citizens because of our race. But this incident did not end there. While I kept telling myself to drop the matter, I could feel my blood pressure rising, heart beating faster, and face flush with anger. When the attendant walked back to make sure our seat belts were fastened, I could not contain my anger any longer. Struggling to control myself, I said to her in a forced calm voice: “Did you know that you asked two passengers of color to step to the rear of the ‘bus’”? For a few seconds she said nothing but looked at me with a horrified expression. Then she said in a righteously indignant tone, “Well, I have never been accused of that! How dare you? I don’t see color! I only asked you to move to balance the plane. Anyway, I was only trying to give you more space and greater privacy.” Attempts to explain my perceptions and feelings only generated greater defensiveness from her. For every allegation I made, she seemed to have a rational reason for her actions. Finally, she broke off the conversation and refused to talk about the incident any longer. Were it not for my colleague who validated my experiential reality, I would have left that encounter wondering whether I was correct or incorrect in my perceptions. Neverthe- less, for the rest of the flight, I stewed over the incident and it left a sour taste in my mouth. The power of racial microaggressions lies in their invisibility to the perpetrator and, oftentimes, the recipient (D. W. Sue, 2005). Most White Americans experience themselves as good, moral, and decent human beings who believe in equality and democracy. Thus, they find it dif- ficult to believe that they possess biased racial attitudes and may engage in behaviors that are discriminatory (D. W. Sue, 2004). Microaggressive acts can usually be explained away by seemingly nonbiased and valid reasons. For the recipient of a microaggression, however, there is always the nagging question of whether it really happened (Crocker & Major, 1989). It is difficult to identify a mi- croaggression, especially when other explanations seem plausible. Many people of color describe a vague feeling Marta Esquilin 275 May–June 2007 ● American Psychologist Table 1 Examples of Racial Microaggressions Theme Microaggression Message Alien in own land When Asian Americans and Latino Americans are assumed to be foreign-born “Where are you from?” “Where were you born?” “You speak good English.” You are not American. A person asking an Asian American to teach them words in their native language You are a foreigner. Ascription of intelligence Assigning intelligence to a person of color on the basis of their race “You are a credit to your race.” People of color are generally not as intelligent as Whites. “You are so articulate.” It is unusual for someone of your race to be intelligent. Asking an Asian person to help with a math or science problem All Asians are intelligent and good in math/sciences. Color blindness Statements that indicate that a White person does not want to acknowledge race “When I look at you, I don’t see color.” Denying a person of color’s racial/ ethnic experiences. “America is a melting pot.” Assimilate/acculturate to the dominant culture. “There is only one race, the human race.” Denying the individual as a racial/ cultural being. Criminality/assumption of criminal status A person of color is presumed to be dangerous, criminal, or deviant on the basis of their race A White man or woman clutching their purse or checking their wallet as a Black or Latino approaches or passes You are a criminal. A store owner following a customer of color around the store You are going to steal/ You are poor/ You do not belong. A White person waits to ride the next elevator when a person of color is on it You are dangerous. Denial of individual racism A statement made when Whites deny their racial biases “I’m not racist. I have several Black friends.” I am immune to racism because I have friends of color. “As a woman, I know what you go through as a racial minority.” Your racial oppression is no different than my gender oppression. I can’t be a racist. I’m like you. Myth of meritocracy Statements which assert that race does not play a role in life successes “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” People of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race. “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.” People of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder. Pathologizing cultural values/ communication styles The notion that the values and communication styles of the dominant/White culture are ideal Asking a Black person: “Why do you have to be so loud/animated? Just calm down.” Assimilate to dominant culture. To an Asian or Latino person: “Why are you so quiet? We want to know what you think. Be more verbal.” “Speak up more.” Dismissing an individual who brings up race/culture in work/school setting Leave your cultural baggage outside. Second-class citizen Occurs when a White person is given preferential treatment as a consumer over a person of color Person of color mistaken for a service worker People of color are servants to Whites. They couldn’t possibly occupy high-status positions. Having a taxi cab pass a person of color and pick up a White passenger You are likely to cause trouble and/ or travel to a dangerous neighborhood. 276 May–June 2007 ● American Psychologist that they have been attacked, that they have been disre- spected, or that something is not right (Franklin, 2004; Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003). In some respects, people of color may find an overt and obvious racist act easier to handle than microaggressions that seem vague or disguised (So- lo ́rzano et al., 2000). The above incident reveals how microaggressions operate to create psychological dilemmas for both the White perpetrator and the person of color. Four such dilemmas are particularly noteworthy for everyone to understand. Dilemma 1: Clash of Racial Realities The question we pose is this: Did the flight attendant engage in a microaggression or did the senior author and his colleague simply misinterpret the action? Studies indi- cate that the racial perceptions of people of color differ markedly from those of Whites (Jones, 1997; Harris Poll commissioned by the National Conference of Christians and Jews, 1992). In most cases, White Americans tend to believe that minorities are doing better in life, that discrim- ination is on the decline, that racism is no longer a signif- icant factor in the lives of people of color, and that equality has been achieved. More important, the majority of Whites do not view themselves as racist or capable of racist be- havior. Minorities, on the other hand, perceive Whites as (a) racially insensitive, (b) unwilling to share their position and wealth, (c) believing they are superior, (d) needing to control everything, and (e) treating them poorly because of their race. People of color believe these attributes are reenacted everyday in their interpersonal interactions with Whites, oftentimes in the form of microaggressions (Solo ́r- zano et al., 2000). For example, it was found that 96% of African Americans reported experiencing racial discrimi- nation in a one-year period (Klonoff & Landrine, 1999), and many incidents involved being mistaken for a service worker, being ignored, given poor service, treated rudely, or experiencing strangers acting fearful or intimidated when around them (Sellers & Shelton, 2003). Dilemma 2: The Invisibility of Unintentional Expressions of Bias The interaction between the senior author and the flight attendant convinced him that she was sincere in her belief that she had acted in good faith without racial bias. Her actions and their meaning were invisible to her. It was clear that she was stunned that anyone would accuse her of such despicable actions. After all, in her mind, she acted with only the best of intentions: to distribute the weight evenly on the plane for safety reasons and to give two passengers greater privacy and space. She felt betrayed that her good intentions were being questioned. Yet considerable empir- ical evidence exists showing that racial microaggressions become automatic because of cultural conditioning and that they may become connected neurologically with the pro- cessing of emotions that surround prejudice (Abelson et al., 1998). Several investigators have found, for example, that law enforcement officers in laboratory experiments will fire their guns more often at Black criminal suspects than White ones (Plant & Peruche, 2005), and Afrocentric features tend to result in longer prison terms (Blair, Judd, & Chap- leau, 2004). In all cases, these law enforcement officials had no conscious awareness that they responded differently on the basis of race. Herein lies a major dilemma. How does one prove that a microaggression has occurred? What makes our belief that the flight attendant acted in a biased manner any more plausible than her conscious belief that it was generated for another reason? If she did act out of hidden and uncon- scious bias, how do we make her aware of it? Social psychological research tends to confirm the existence of unconscious racial biases in well-intentioned Whites, that Table 1 ( continued ) Theme Microaggression Message Second-class citizen ( continued ) Occurs when a White person is given preferential treatment as a consumer over a person of color ( continued ) Being ignored at a store counter as attention is given to the White customer behind you Whites are more valued customers than people of color. “You people . . . ” You don’t belong. You are a lesser being. Environmental microaggressions Macro-level microaggressions, which are more apparent on systemic and environmental levels A college or university with buildings that are all named after White heterosexual upper class males You don’t belong/You won’t succeed here. There is only so far you can go. Television shows and movies that feature predominantly White people, without representation of people of color You are an outsider/You don’t exist. Overcrowding of public schools in communities of color People of color don’t/shouldn’t value education. Overabundance of liquor stores in communities of color People of color are deviant. 277 May–June 2007 ● American Psychologist nearly everyone born and raised in the United States inher- its the racial biases of the society, and that the most accurate assessment about whether racist acts have oc- curred in a particular situation is most likely to be made by those most disempowered rather than by those who enjoy the privileges of power (Jones, 1997; Keltner & Robinson, 1996). According to these findings, microaggressions (a) tend to be subtle, indirect, and unintentional, (b) are most likely to emerge not when a behavior would look prejudi- cial, but when other rationales can be offered for prejudi- cial behavior, and (c) occur when Whites pretend not to notice differences, thereby justifying that “color” was not involved in the actions taken. Color blindness is a major form of microinvalidation because it denies the racial and experiential reality of people of color and provides an excuse to White people to claim that they are not preju- diced (Helms, 1992; Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000). The flight attendant, for example, did not realize that her “not seeing color” invalidated both passengers’ racial identity and experiential reality. Dilemma 3: Perceived Minimal Harm of Racial Microaggressions In most cases, when individuals are confronted with their microaggressive acts (as in the case of the flight attendant), the perpetrator usually believes that the victim has overre- acted and is being overly sensitive and/or petty. After all, even if it was an innocent racial blunder, microaggressions are believed to have minimal negative impact. People of color are told not to overreact and to simply “let it go.” Usually, Whites consider microaggressive incidents to be Figure 1 Categories of and Relationships Among Racial Microaggressions Ascription of Intelligence Alien in Own Land Assigning a degree of intelligence to a person of color based on their race. Second Class Citizen Treated as a lesser person or group. Pathologizing cultural values/communication styles Notion that the values and communication styles of people of color are abnormal. Assumption of Criminal status Presumed to be a criminal, dangerous, or deviant based on race. Belief that visible racial/ethnic minority citizens are foreigners. Color Blindness Denial or pretense that a White person does not see color or race. Myth of Meritocracy Statements which assert that race plays a minor role in life success. Denial of Individual Racism Denial of personal racism or one’s role in its perpetuation. Microinsult (Often Unconscious) Behavioral/verbal remarks or comments that convey rudeness, insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity. Microassault (Often Conscious) Explicit racial derogations characterized primarily by a violent verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant behavior or purposeful discriminatory actions. Environmental Microaggressions (Macro-level) Racial assaults, insults and invalidations which are manifested on systemic and environmental levels. Microinvalidation (Often Unconscious) Verbal comments or behaviors that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color. Racial Microaggressions Commonplace verbal or behavioral indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults. 278 May–June 2007 ● American Psychologist minor, and people of color are encouraged (oftentimes by people of color as well) to not waste time or effort on them. It is clear that old-fashioned racism unfairly disadvan- tages people of color and that it contributes to stress, depression, shame, and anger in its victims (Jones, 1997). But evidence also supports the detrimental impact of more subtle forms of racism (Chakraborty & McKenzie, 2002; Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999). For example, in a survey of studies examining racism and mental health, researchers found a positive association between happiness and life satisfaction, self-esteem, mastery of control, hy- pertension, and discrimination (Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2003). Many of the types of everyday racism identified by Williams and colleagues (Williams & Collins, 1995; Williams, Lavizzo-Mourey, & Warren, 1994) pro- vide strong support for the idea that racial microaggres- sions are not minimally harmful. One study specifically examined microaggressions in the experiences of African Americans and found that the cumulative effects can be quite devastating (Solo ́rzano et al., 2000). The researchers reported that experience with microaggressions resulted in a negative racial climate and emotions of self-doubt, frus- tration, and isolation on the part of victims. As indicated in the incident above, the senior author experienced consid- erable emotional turmoil that lasted for the entire flight. When one considers that people of color are exposed con- tinually to microaggressions and that their effects are cu- mulative, it becomes easier to understand the psychological toll they may take on recipients’ well-being. We submit that covert racism in the form of microag- gressions also has a dramatic and detrimental impact on people of color. Although microaggressions may be seem- ingly innocuous and insignificant, their effects can be quite dramatic (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). D. W. Sue believes that “this contemporary form of racism is many times over more problematic, damaging, and injurious to persons of color than overt racist acts” (D. W. Sue, 2003, p. 48). It has been noted that the cumulative effects of racial microaggressions may theoretically result in “diminished mortality, augmented morbidity and flattened confidence” (Pierce, 1995, p. 281). It is important to study and acknowl- edge this form of racism in society because without docu- mentation and analysis to better understand microaggres- sions, the threats that they pose and the assaults that they justify can be easily ignored or downplayed (Solo ́rzano et al., 2000). D. W. Sue (2005) has referred to this phenom- enon as “a conspiracy of silence.” Dilemma 4: The Catch-22 of Responding to Microaggressions When a microaggression occurs, the victim is usually placed in a catch-22. The immediate reaction might be a series of questions: Did what I think happened, really happen? Was this a deliberate act or an unintentional slight? How should I respond? Sit and stew on it or con- front the person? If I bring the topic up, how do I prove it? Is it really worth the effort? Should I just drop the matter? These questions in one form or another have been a com- mon, if not a universal, reaction of persons of color who experience an attributional ambiguity (Crocker & Major, 1989). First, the person must determine whether a microag- gression has occurred. In that respect, people of color rely heavily on experiential reality that is contextual in nature and involves life experiences from a variety of situations. When the flight attendant asked the senior author and his colleague to move, it was not the first time that similar requests and situations had occurred for both. In their experience, these incidents were nonrandom events (Rid- ley, 2005), and their perception was that the only similarity “connecting the dots” to each and every one of these incidents was the color of their skin. In other words, the situation on the plane was only one of many similar inci- dents with identical outcomes. Yet the flight attendant and most White Americans do not share these multiple experi- ences, and they evaluate their own behaviors in the moment through a singular event (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). Thus, they fail to see a pattern of bias, are defended by a belief in their own morality, and can in good conscience deny that they discriminated (D. W. Sue, 2005). Second, how one reacts to a microaggression may have differential effects, not only on the perpetrator but on the person of color as well. Deciding to do nothing by sitting on one’s anger is one response that occurs frequently in people of color. This response occurs because persons of color may be (a) unable to determine whether a microag- gression has occurred, (b) at a loss for how to respond, (c) fearful of the consequences, (d) rationalizing that “it won’t do any good anyway,” or (e) engaging in self-deception through denial (“It didn’t happen.”). Although these expla- nations for nonresponse may hold some validity for the person of color, we submit that not doing anything has the potential to result in psychological harm. It may mean a denial of one’s experiential reality, dealing with a loss of integrity, or experiencing pent-up anger and frustration likely to take psychological and physical tolls. Third, responding with anger and striking back (per- haps a normal and healthy reaction) is likely to engender negative consequences for persons of color as well. They are likely to be accused of being racially oversensitive or paranoid or told that their emotional outbursts confirm stereotypes about minorities. In the case of Black males, for example, protesting may lend credence to the belief that they are hostile, angry, impulsive, and prone to violence (Jones, 1997). In this case, the person of color might feel better after venting, but the outcome results in greater hostility by Whites toward minorities. Further, while the person of color may feel better in the immediate moment by relieving pent-up emotions, the reality is that the general situation has not been changed. In essence, the catch-22 means you are “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.” What is lacking is research that points to adaptive ways of handling microaggressions by